Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:33:00.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Timing of Fall Panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum) Removal in Sugarcane

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dennis C. Odero ,
Mathew Duchrow  and
Nikol Havranek
Dennis C. Odero*
Affiliation:
Everglades Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Belle Glade, FL 33430
Mathew Duchrow
Affiliation:
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Belle Glade, FL 33430
Nikol Havranek
Affiliation:
Everglades Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Belle Glade, FL 33430
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dcodero@ufl.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fall panicum is the most troublesome annual grass weed in sugarcane in Florida. The critical timing of fall panicum removal in sugarcane or the maximum amount of early season interference that sugarcane can tolerate before it suffers irrecoverable yield loss is not known. Field studies were conducted from 2012 to 2015 in Belle Glade, FL to determine the critical timing of fall panicum removal and season-long interference in sugarcane. The effect of season-long fall panicum interference and critical timing of removal based on 5 and 10% acceptable yield loss (AYL) levels were determined by fitting a log-logistic equation to percentage millable stalk, cane, and sugar yield loss data. Millable stalks, cane, and sucrose yield decreased as the duration of fall panicum interference increased. Season-long interference of fall panicum resulted in 34 to 60%, 34 to 62%, and 44 to 60% millable stalk, cane, and sucrose yield loss, respectively. The critical timing of fall panicum removal based on 5 and 10% AYL for millable stalks was 5 to 9 wk after sugarcane emergence (WAE). At 5 and 10% AYL, the critical timing of fall panicum removal ranged from 5 to 9 WAE and 6 to 8 WAE for cane and sucrose yield loss, respectively. These results show that fall panicum is competitive with sugarcane early in the season, demonstrating the need for timely early-season control to reduce negative effect on yield.

Panicum dichotomiflorum es una de las malezas anuales más problemáticas en caña de azúcar en Florida. Sin embargo, no se sabe cuál es el momento crítico para la eliminación de P. dichotomiflorum en caña de azúcar o la cantidad de interferencia, temprano durante la temporada de crecimiento, que puede tolerar la caña de azúcar antes de sufrir pérdidas de rendimiento irrecuperables. Se realizaron estudios de campo entre 2012 y 2015 en Belle Glade, FL, para determinar el momento crítico para la eliminación de P. dichotomiflorum y la interferencia durante la temporada de crecimiento de la caña de azúcar. El efecto de la interferencia de P. dichotomiflorum durante toda la temporada de crecimiento y del momento de eliminación de esta maleza con base en niveles de pérdida de rendimiento aceptables (AYL) de 5 y 10% fueron determinados con una ecuación log-logística para datos de pérdida de porcentaje de tallos molibles, de caña, y de azúcar. El rendimiento de tallos molibles, de caña, y de sucrose disminuyeron al aumentar la duración de la interferencia de P. dichotomiflorum. La interferencia de P. dichotomiflorum durante toda la temporada resultó en pérdidas de rendimiento de 34 a 60%, 34 a 62%, y 44 a 60% de tallos molibles, caña, y sucrose, respectivamente. El momento crítico para le eliminación de P. dichotomiflorum con base en AYL de 5 y 10% de tallos molibles fue 5 y 9 semanas después de la emergencia (WAE) de la caña de azúcar. A 5 y 10% de AYL, el momento crítico de eliminación de P. dichotomiflorum varió desde 5 a 9 WAE y 6 a 8 WAE para la pérdida de rendimiento de caña y sucrose, respectivamente. Estos resultados muestran que P. dichotomiflorum compite con la caña de azúcar, temprano durante la temporada de crecimiento, lo que demuestra la necesidad de controlar esta maleza a tiempo, temprano en la temporada, para reducir sus efectos negativos sobre el rendimiento.

Keywords

Fall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx.sugarcane, Saccharum officinarum L.Cane yieldcompetitioninterferencemillable stalksremoval timingsucrose yield
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 13 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Prashant Jha, Montana State University.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous (2015) Weather and Water—South Florida Water Management District. http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/levelthree/weather%20%20water. Accessed May 30, 2015Google Scholar
Bosnic, AC, Swanton, CJ (1997) Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgalli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 45:276–282 Google Scholar
Brecke, BJ, Duke, WB (1980) Dormancy, germination, and emergence characteristics of fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum) seed. Weed Sci 28:683–685 Google Scholar
Fausey, JC, Renner, KA (1997) Germination, emergence, and growth of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum). Weed Sci 45:423–425 Google Scholar
Gilbert, RA, Comstock, JC, Glaz, B, Edmé, SJ, Davidson, RW, Glynn, NC, Miller, JD, Tai, PYP (2008) Registration of ‘CP 00-1101’ sugarcane. J Plant Regist 2:95–101 Google Scholar
Govinthasamy, K, Cavers, PB (1995) The effects of smut (Ustilago destruens) on seed production, dormancy, and viability in fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum). Can J Botany 73:1628–1634 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Datta, A (2015) The critical period for weed control: revisiting data analysis. Weed Sci 63:188–202 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Van Acker, RC, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786 Google Scholar
Legendre, BL (1992) The core/press method for predicting the sugar yield from cane for use in cane payment. Sugar J 54:2–7 Google Scholar
McIntosh, MS (1983) Analysis of combined experiments. Agron J 75:153–155 Google Scholar
Miller, JD, Gilbert, RA, Odero, DC (2012) Sugarcane Botany: A Brief View. Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Electronic Data Information Source SS-AGR-234Google Scholar
Millholon, RX (1992) Effect of itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) interference on growth and yield of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). Weed Sci 40:48–53 Google Scholar
Mossler, M (2008) Florida Crop/Pest Profile: Sugarcane. Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Electronic Data Information Source PI-171Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Oliveira, MJ (2004) Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide-and narrow-row corn. Weed Sci 52:802–807 Google Scholar
Odero, DC, Shaner, DL (2014a) Dissipation of pendimethalin in organic soils in Florida. Weed Technol 28:82–88 Google Scholar
Odero, DC, Shaner, DL (2014b) Field dissipation of atrazine and metribuzin in organic soils in Florida. Weed Technol 28:578–586 Google Scholar
Rajcan, I, Swanton, CJ (2001) Understanding maize–weed competition: resource competition, light quality and the whole plant. Field Crops Res 71:139–150 Google Scholar
Rice, R, Baucum, L, Davidson, W (2014) Sugarcane variety census: Florida 2013. Sugar J Google Scholar
Richard, EP Jr., Dalley, CD (2007) Sugarcane response to bermudagrass interference. Weed Technol 21:941–946 Google Scholar
Ritz, C, Spiess, AN (2008) qpcR: an R package for sigmoidal model selection in quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis. Bioinformatics 24:1549–1551 Google Scholar
Ritz, C, Streibig, JC (2005) Bioassay analysis using R. J Stat Softw 12:1–22 Google Scholar
Singh, M, Saxena, MC, Abu-Irmaileh, BE, Al-Thahabi, SA, Haddad, NI (1996) Estimation of critical period of weed control. Weed Sci 44:273–283 Google Scholar
Spiess, AN, Neumeyer, N (2010) An evaluation of R 2 as an inadequate measure for nonlinear models in pharmacological and biochemical research: a Monte Carlo approach. BMC Pharmacol 10:6 Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2015) Acreage, Sugarcane for Sugar and Seed Harvested—States and United States: 2013 and 2014. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre/Acre-06-30-2014.pdf. Accessed May 26, 2015Google Scholar
Van Acker, RC, Weise, SF, Swanton, CJ (1993) The critical period of weed control in soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Weed Sci 41:194–200 Google Scholar
Vengris, J, Damon, RA Jr. (1976) Field growth of fall panicum and witchgrass. Weed Sci 24:205–208 Google Scholar
Yirefu, F, Tana, T, Tafesse, A, Zekarias, Y (2012) Competitive ability of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) cultivars to weed interference in sugarcane plantations of Ethiopia. Crop Prot 32:138–143 Google Scholar
Zimdahl, RL (2004) Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. 2nd edn. San Diego, CA: Blackwell. 195 pGoogle Scholar